X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/20df2ee6fe0b9cbde72f47193ede4ac7f971d617..154c4ea9e:/doc/plugins/contrib/field/discussion.mdwn diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/field/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/field/discussion.mdwn index 80d0b2b71..6161f80df 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/field/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/field/discussion.mdwn @@ -370,6 +370,36 @@ Security, in this sense, would be up to the plugin responsible for the namespace processing (the default handler would HTML-escape text fields scrub, html fields, safeurl()ify url fields, etc.) +> So, are you saying that getting a field value is sort of a two-stage process? Get the value from anywhere, and then call the "security processor" for that namespace to "secure" the value? I think "namespaces" are really orthogonal to this issue. What the issue seems to be is: + + * what form do we expect the raw field to be in? (text, URL, HTML) + * what form do we expect the "secured" output to be in? (raw HTML, scrubbed HTML, escaped HTML, URL) + +> Only if we know both these things will we know what sort of security processing needs to be done. + +>> Fieldsets are orthogonal to the security issue in the sense that you can use +>> them without worrying about the field security issue, but they happen to be +>> a rather clean way of answering those two questions, by allowing you to +>> attach preprocessing attributes to a field in a way that the user +>> (supposedly) cannot mingle with. + +> There is also a difference between field values that are used inside pagetemplate, and field values which are used as part of a page's content (e.g. with ftemplate). If you have a TITLE, you want it to be HTML-escaped if you're using it inside pagetemplate, but you don't want it to be HTML-escaped if you're using it inside a page's content. On the other hand, if you have, say, FEEDLINKS used inside pagetemplate, you don't wish it to be HTML-escaped at all, or your page content will be completely stuffed. + +>> Not to talk about the many different ways date-like fields might be need +>> processing. It has already been proposed to solve this problem by exposing +>> the field values under different names depending on the kind or amout of +>> postprocessing they had (e.g. RAW_SOMEFIELD, SOMEFIELD, to which we could add +>> HTML_SOMEFIELD, URL_SOMEFIELD or whatever). Again, fieldsets offer a simple way +>> of letting Ikiwiki know what kind of postprocessing should be offered for +>> that particular field. + +> So, somehow, we have to know the meaning of a field before we can use it properly, which kind of goes against the idea of having something generic. + +>> We could have a default field type (text, for example), and a way to set a +>> different field type (which is what my fieldset proposal was about). + +> --[[KathrynAndersen]] + ----- I was just looking at HTML5 and wondered if the field plugin should generate the new Microdata tags (as well as the internal structures)? -- [[Will]]